A DECADE OF STORYTELLING POWERED BY THE BEST WRITERS ON THE PLANET

CLICK BELOW TO REDISCOVER HUMANITY

Creating High Impact and Quality Outcomes

–boosting your efforts with evidence-based knowledge

Why would you want to know?

I have a secret, many actually don’t we all, but I have decided to share this one with you. I wasn’t initially, I thought I’d keep it to myself – but this deserves to be shared as it aims to build a better world by keeping us up to date and closing the mythical gap between research and practice – the king of gaps between Academia and Practice and hence also the “Knowing-Doing Gap”.

What do they cover?

In broad terms, the areas covered are within the People and Organisation space which amongst others also encompass Leadership & Management, Human Resources, Organisational & Digital transformation & Development, Coaching, Work psychology, Learning & Development and a multiple of related areas – illustrated below in figure 1.

Knowledge, research and practitioners domains covered by The Oxford Review

Fig.1. Knowledge & research areas in The Oxford-Review (2020)

Who are they?

A small company called The Oxford Review headed by Editor in Chief David Wilkinson and a passionate group of people (employees) and members all striving to bring research and evidence-based knowledge to all of us in digested, condensed, and readily understandable in common language – now there are multiple win-win situations!

How does it come about?

The short version goes something like this. Published research is scanned continually, and interesting & relevant papers are reviewed and published in so-called Research Briefings. The Research Briefings are typically 3-6 pages written in common language (you actually don’t need to be an academic to understand them).

The Oxford Review drive out the essence and implications of the research and present it in a digestible format – which means you don’t have to work your way through 15-60 pages of academic language, research method, and statistical analysis – that honestly, most of us do not have time for, nor the needed background to fully comprehend nor translate into something applicable in practice.

From output to outcome

The Oxford Review produces an astonishing amount of research and evidence-based output. This is in itself hugely valuable for individual consultants, business members, and organisations as input to their own production of outputs and outcomes. What is fundamentally valuable is that the Oxford Review helps you produce high-quality outcomes with impact by ways of the individual products & services (outputs) and the combination of these products & services to your specific context.

Inherent nature of the value proposition

Some would say that a lot of companies do this or something similar, and I would agree.

The KEY difference is that The Oxford Review defines reality based on research and evidence being a key part of the value proposition, in the sense that this drives the business model not the other way around. What this means is, that knowledge and information are not adjusted to fit a business model or value proposition – it simply is the benefit provided (outputs) that is then situated in customer context producing both specific and general outcomes.

In short, the business model and value proposition are driven by the knowledge presented in reality and not selected, altered, and adjusted to fit the business model or value proposition – and this is a cardinal difference to many other providers that make reality fit their business models and value propositions.

An amble available example of this reality investigative attitude of the Oxford Review is the video research briefing: “Do 70% of change programmes fail? What the research actually says?

Another example showcase knowledge accessibility, condensed format, and easily digestible format in “Evidence-based list of barriers to organisational change” providing huge value to any change program and with little effort or time consumption – which is the king of pain (time & speed) in modern business (use it as a checklist).

The Oxford-Review output as input to joint outcomes: Use case example.

In a client assignment preparing a transformation program within IT/Digital space, we requested knowledge specific to organisational change management beyond and enriching the generalised models available on the market.

After our initial request and a brief talk, we were recommended a number of Research Briefings and Special Reports (10-20 pages topic-specific reports) within the organisational change & transformation management areas. Establishing and referencing the same validated information creates a common language and shared knowledge – it can even be reconfirmation like Is the change curve a myth?

This was helpful in informing the change stream team participants incl. killing the myth of change project failure rate and confirming the change curve implication to the specific context – actually being on the same page in the same book!

Managed and unmanaged change

Fig. 2. Change curve – managed/unmanged change

Another crucial element came from the advanced Emotion Regulation course that the Oxford Review provides. The course is usually provided 1-2 times yearly for members and a basic edition likewise as an open and free course.

In a joint scoping and designing effort with representatives from The Oxford Review we managed to develop a training and coaching path during the change program based on change scope, the change curve (simulations), specific changes aligned to both general and specific emotional reactions within leaders, managers, teams, and employees involved in the program.

Per Berggreen
Per Berggreenhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/digitalhumanpro/
Per is a truly hybrid profile with a background as BSc Production Engineering, Army officer, Master’s in Philosophy within Ethics and Values in organizations and IT within organisation, strategy, and governance. More than 20 years’ experience in large national, international and global organizations with a long-range of experiences within organisational, people and competence development, IT & technology strategy, governance & organisation in different roles focusing on collaboration, engagement, relation- & partnership management. A firm believer in decency & dignity, virtue ethics, and concepts of conscious capitalism and stakeholder theory. He has designed, developed, implemented, and lead global collaboration forums and Communities of Practice (CoP) within Renewable Energy (Wind), Fashion, and Software development companies and as a consultant within Food and FMCG, Financial Services & Banking, Pharma, Production and Auto industries. Extensive global experiences with cross-functional and -cultural collaboration within complex organisational environments and system landscapes. Experienced leader and project, program, and portfolio leader focused on individual, organisational, and business impact, change, and transformation. He has driven initiatives from a reverse impact & benefit perspective within IT/Digital & Organizational transformation & development, account management roles, established customer relations as engagement architect in companies like Vestas, Bestseller, Siemens, and SAP all kick-started by national liaison officer and international NATO liaison to the Partnership for Peace program. Focused on building trust and three key relationship states Transactional | Transmissional | Transformational and the potential to transition states and stretch the exchange economy from being predominantly focused on reciprocity to be about mutuality in both design, concept, and realization. We are humans before anything else and that’s the fundamental outset for all relationships and the ethical demand. A “philo” for philosophy and admirer of the ancient Greeks and the Stoics combined with contemporary thinking especially within organisational- and leadership – philosophy. He believes the foundation for all our activities are found(ed) in thought & reflection and nurturing that ability is as important as making yourself vocal. Values are cardinal to our existence and fundamental to who we are and how we act personally, privately, and professionally.

1 COMMENT

  1. I love the Oxford Review, Per, so I am happy to support your shout out.
    I accept that I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to asking for supporting data and being suspicious when there are no links to the original research.
    Supposedly, being critical this way is culturally influenced and also shows up in how communication is organized “from application towards supportive details” vs “from research to what does this mean for us?”

▲ ENCOUNTER HUMANITY IN TAMPA BAY FLORIDA ▲

DAILY INSPIRATION. DELIVERED.